Retrieve Aseprite's live editor state to check open sprites, active sprite/layer/frame, colors, tool, brush, timeline range, and zoom.
Returns Aseprite's current state: open sprites, active sprite/layer/frame, foreground/background colors, tool, brush, timeline range and editor zoom (live).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| backend | No | auto (default): live Aseprite if connected, else headless batch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the reported data is current/live ('editor zoom (live)'), hinting at the live-vs-batch distinction, but never states whether the headless batch fallback returns stale or partial state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the return fields with no filler; the tool's purpose is knowable from the first four words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the field enumeration usefully carries the return contract, and the one optional parameter is covered by the schema. It stops short of explaining behavior differences between the live and batch backends.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'backend' enum is fully documented in the schema. The description's '(live)' mention gestures at the same live/batch choice but adds no syntax or default details beyond what the schema already gives.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Aseprite's current state') and enumerates the exact fields returned, which effectively separates it from per-sprite readers like get_sprite_info. It does not name a sibling tool it is not, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says what is returned but never states when to reach for this tool versus status, get_sprite_info, or recent_events, nor any exclusions. Usage is only faintly implied by the read-state framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.